Here's another point that some of the men here who are husbands might not grasp. As a Christian wife, I must recognize that my husband is the head over me. Sometimes depending on the husband, that can be a very stressful role to have to submit to. Not all Christian husbands treat their wives in the way that the bible instructs them to, to love them like they love themselves and to recognize them as the weaker vessel.

When a husband dies, the wife is released from that role and now is subject only to Christ as head over her. I know widows who thrived after the death of their husbands, because while their husbands lived they had to be subject to what their husbands wanted in everything, what they had for dinner, what they watched on TV, where they lived, where they went on vacation, who their friends were, where they went to church, etc... when their spouse died, they were free to do the things that they had always wanted to do but couldn't. Some of you husbands out there need to take notice of this.

The study though, was not just a study of Christians, but the general population. However I think that even in non-christian marriages, especially of older generations, the women have a built in sense that the man is the authority. So I think it applies to them as well.

Resurrection Torchlight wrote:When a husband dies, the wife is released from that role and now is subject only to Christ as head over her.

As it should be according to scripture.

Eph. 4:15-16. Christ as head provides the body with oneness, cohesion and growth. This is a servant-provider role, not one of rulership.

Eph. 5:23. Christ is head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. His headship to the church is defined as saviorhood which is biblically defined as a servant, self-sacrificing function, not a lordship role.

Col. 1:18. Christ is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead. As its head, Christ is the source of the church's life.

Col. 2:19. Christ is the head from whom the whole body grows because it is nourished by him. He is servant-provider of life and growth to the church.

Off topic somewhat, but I challenge you, RT, to find one scripture where husbands are told to have any authority or entitled to act as leaders over their wives. There is a mutual submission clearly stated (Eph.) and a mutual authority (1 Cor. 7) clearly stated, but no unilateral suggestion for a husband to have any "headship" over his wife.

So wives become less stressed after their husband die but are they depressed? miserable? or wishing their husband was alive?My grandmother was less stressed after my grandfather died, because she didn't have to take care of him because of his arthritis, but she was miserable without him. She would rather be stressed with him being alive....

To add; Ephesian 5:23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.

WOODHENOT3 wrote:To add; Ephesian 5:23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.

Hi Woody,

I put the same challenge to you that I previously did to RT above. Please post one scripture where husbands are told to lead or have authority over their wives. Eph. states there is mutual submission; 1 Cor. 7 states mutual authority; and there are over 50 scriptures that clearly define the relationship of each believer to others regardless of marital status, gender, or ethnicity. But I've not found even one where such a leadership/headship position is commanded of a husband. Ephesian 5:23 speaks of Christ's self-sacrifice in giving up his very life for the church. That is the voluntary life-giving sacrifice a husband needs to emulate Christ's example. Jesus is the life-giver to the church because He manifested His love for the church by the sacrifice of His life.

WOODHENOT3 wrote:To add; Ephesian 5:23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.

Hi Woody,

I put the same challenge to you that I previously did to RT above. Please post one scripture where husbands are told to lead or have authority over their wives. Eph. states there is mutual submission; 1 Cor. 7 states mutual authority; and there are over 50 scriptures that clearly define the relationship of each believer to others regardless of marital status, gender, or ethnicity. But I've not found even one where such a leadership/headship position is commanded of a husband. Ephesian 5:23 speaks of Christ's self-sacrifice in giving up his very life for the church. That is the voluntary life-giving sacrifice a husband needs to emulate Christ's example. Jesus is the life-giver to the church because He manifested His love for the church by the sacrifice of His life.

Thanks for explaining, I agree with you, I believe a husband and wife should be a team together, my wife relies on my decisions I make for my family because of wisdom, but I rely on her for certain things as well....we are two in one...so I don't have a problem...just wondered about the verse I posted....Also, a woman should not be controlling or think they have authority over their husbands as well....I've seen a lot of bad marriages because one of the couple wants all the authority and become a bit controlling....:)

Also, a woman should not be controlling or think they have authority over their husbands as well....I've seen a lot of bad marriages because one of the couple wants all the authority and become a bit controlling....

Unfortunately some turn marriage into a power struggle... rather than the intended "one anothering" that is beneficial to both parties.

Also, a woman should not be controlling or think they have authority over their husbands as well....I've seen a lot of bad marriages because one of the couple wants all the authority and become a bit controlling....

Unfortunately some turn marriage into a power struggle... rather than the intended "one anothering" that is beneficial to both parties.

Totally agree....I helped a friend to save his marriage, sadly, his wife and him were fighting over who has the power, they both were very controlling, it was awful....there was no team work...the marriage didn't last long either.

Thanks for the link, surprised how debative this subject of "head" is ....if we walk spiritually, we don't need a "head"...lol

Off topic somewhat, but I challenge you, RT, to find one scripture where husbands are told to have any authority or entitled to act as leaders over their wives. There is a mutual submission clearly stated (Eph.) and a mutual authority (1 Cor. 7) clearly stated, but no unilateral suggestion for a husband to have any "headship" over his wife.

Genesis 3:16 16 To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.”

Ephesians 5:22-24 22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

Colossians 3:18 18 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

1 Peter 3:1-6 1 In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, 2 as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. 3 Your adornment must not be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; 4 but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands; 6 just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.

I do not see mutual authority, but rather a mutual understanding. The husband understands that his wife is the weaker sex, and is to love her like he loves his own body.The wife understands that she is to subject herself to the leadership of her husband and respect him. The husband is head, LIKE Christ is head over the church. You would not suggest that we as the church have mutual authority with Christ would you?

Ephesians 5:24 above says that the church is subject to Christ, in the same way the wife is subject to her husband. 1 Peter gives the example of Sarah, who obeyed her husband, to submit oneself is to put oneself under the authority of another. Wives are to submit themselves to the authority of their husbands, just like the church submits itself to the authority of Christ.

Of course there should be teamwork in any good marriage, love is what motivates both husband and wife to work with each other, understanding their different roles in the marriage. Most of the marriages that I have seen falter, has at its root a wife who wants to rule the roost, or a husband that neglects to love his wife.

Here's just one study (although there are many others) that may be of some help to you in understanding the verse you posted from Eph. An Exhaustive Study on the Meaning of "Head:"

Not surprised to find that the study was written by a woman....just saying.

The challenge was to show scripture where husbands are told they have any authority or entitled to act as leaders over their wives. I think you will agree that if such a responsibility, or power was decreed, we would find it in scripture. You have pointed to scripture that speaks to wives. We can also find scripture that speaks to submission of children and slaves, but we know that Paul was in no way condoning slavery but rather speaking to practices that were common at the time. Children are only subject to their parents until reaching an age where they are mature enough to leave them.

Genesis 3:16 16 To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.”

This is a common error promoted by complementarians and those in favor of a hierarchy in both marriages and in the Trinity. But in it's context, it is a prophetic word within a list of negative, adverse conditions as a result of future living outside of the garden that was specifically designed for the man and woman with perfect fellowship with God. Just as all men are not confined to working the fields by the sweat of their brows and eat plants, most are employed in inside jobs where air-conditioning negates that prophetic word. And while some may choose a field in agriculture, industrial advances do not require the same toil and sweat as prophesied to Adam. We no longer allow our gardens to let thorns and thistles overtake them, but freely make use of products that inhibit their growth in order to favor our vegetable or flower garden. Women are provided supplements and/or other procedures so they no longer suffer pains in childbirth due to medical and scientific advances which now provide welcomed relief.

So take the verse in it's context, you will see it is not a mandate, and certainly not a desired or beneficial one, but rather a warning of negative, adverse consequences which sadly has yet to be overcome as have the others in the passage.

Ephesians 5:22-24 22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

You might want to refer to the link I posted to Woody above as the erroneous teaching about husband's authority in a marriage is based solely on the interpretation of the word head. Again, should this be a prerequisite of the relationship of husband and wife, correct use of scriptural hermeneutic oppose building doctrine on a singlel word or even a single verse that contradicts the overall counsel throughout scripture. Paul would be clearly contradicting verse 21 one verse earlier where all believers are to be subject to one another. Wives are not subject in a different way than are all believers, including the husband, to one another.

In context of chapter 5 of Ephesians, Paul addresses the benefits and virtue of being filled with the Spirit as opposed to being filled with wine. He lists a "string of participles" that all flow out of being filled with the Spirit.

* being careful how you walk* making the most of your time* addressing one another in psalms, and hymns and spiritual songs* singing and* making melodies* giving thanks always to God* submitting to one another

I'm not going to reply to each of your verses because the absence of a mandate specifically to husbands should be a red flag that requires a better understanding of the wife-submission/husband-authority/leader teaching. We must also keep in mind that Jesus specifically said "it shall not be so with you" when speaking of those who claim authority over others. I might add that the cleverly devised term "servant-leader" used to condone a husband's authority just doesn't cut it.

Just want to address one more in the interest of time and length of this post.

1 Peter 3:1-6 6 just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.

In Gen. 21, God told Abraham to do whatever Sarah told him to do...does that mean all men have to obey their wives?

I do not see mutual authority, but rather a mutual understanding.

1Cor. 7:4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 1Cor. 7:5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement

Each has authority and must not override the other. Agreement between two believers of equal authority.

The wife understands that she is to subject herself to the leadership of her husband ....

Please provide scripture where a husband is told to be the leader over his wife.

The husband is head, LIKE Christ is head over the church. You would not suggest that we as the church have mutual authority with Christ would you?

Ephesians 5 speaks of Christ's sacrifice on behalf of the church. His giving up His very life for the church. There is no mention of Christ's authority but radical self-sacrifice. That's the example for the husband to his wife. Jesus said he did not come to be served, but rather to serve.

Of course there should be teamwork in any good marriage, love is what motivates both husband and wife to work with each other, understanding their different roles in the marriage. Most of the marriages that I have seen falter, has at its root a wife who wants to rule the roost, or a husband that neglects to love his wife.

There are no different roles designated in scripture. The divisions and/or distinctions between Greeks and Jews, slave and free, male and female are none. We are all heirs, priests, and recipients of the same grace and gifts of the spirit.

Not surprised to find that the study was written by a woman....just saying.

Why does that bother you, RT? Does it make it any more palatable knowing it's endorsed by a pastor on his blog?

If you'd rather read about authority in marriage written by a man, check this one out although I'm happy to provide others if you wish.

The title of this one on Wade's blog is:

The Only Time the Bible Uses the Word "Authority" (exousia) in the Context of Marriage Should Lead Couples to Cherish Unity

Genesis 3:1616 To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.”

This is a common error promoted by complementarians and those in favor of a hierarchy in both marriages and in the Trinity. But in it's context, it is a prophetic word within a list of negative, adverse conditions as a result of future living outside of the garden that was specifically designed for the man and woman with perfect fellowship with God. Just as all men are not confined to working the fields by the sweat of their brows and eat plants, most are employed in inside jobs where air-conditioning negates that prophetic word. And while some may choose a field in agriculture, industrial advances do not require the same toil and sweat as prophesied to Adam. We no longer allow our gardens to let thorns and thistles overtake them, but freely make use of products that inhibit their growth in order to favor our vegetable or flower garden. Women are provided supplements and/or other procedures so they no longer suffer pains in childbirth due to medical and scientific advances which now provide welcomed relief.

Are you suggesting that the curse upon Adam and Eve, no longer applies to mankind because technology has changed the way we live?

I would suggest that what Paul does is supply a prescription to overcome the curse, in Christ. I am not saying that a husband has the right to treat his wife poorly, neither is Paul, he is supplying a solution. Husbands are to love their wives like Christ loves the church, yes sacrificially, giving themselves up for her. Since the husband is the head, he takes the lead, and Women in response are to willingly subject themselves to the lordship of their husbands. And if husbands truly loved their wives as Christ loves the church, I think most wives would have no trouble submitting to their husbands. That doesn't mean however that wives cannot make decisions, or that husbands never have to listen to their wives or that wives cannot take on leadership roles within their marriages. Just as the church submits to the Lordship of Christ, and He as the head gives her liberty to exercise her gifts and abilities to serve Him and others. The analogy is pretty clear, Sarah obeyed her husband, she called him Lord. Husbands don't call their wives "Lord" do they? Just because the Lord told Abraham to listen to his wife, doesn't change the fact that Sarah was subject to Abraham. In fact God had to tell Abraham to listen to Sarah, because that was not the norm for him to do so. And because God is the head of man, Abraham had to obey God in that instance.

Suffice it to say that I do not agree with the study you posted, the woman completely ignores the context of the passages and focuses solely on the meaning of one word. I don't have time at the moment to look at the other studies and don't really want to continue a debate about it here, Since that isn't what the OP is about. If you want to start a thread in the debate section then sure, I'll carry on over there.

Resurrection Torchlight wrote:Are you suggesting that the curse upon Adam and Eve, no longer applies to mankind because technology has changed the way we live?

There was no curse upon Adam and Eve. Only the ground and the serpent were cursed. Please re-read Genesis 3.

I would suggest that what Paul does is supply a prescription to overcome the curse, in Christ. I am not saying that a husband has the right to treat his wife poorly, neither is Paul, he is supplying a solution. Husbands are to love their wives like Christ loves the church, yes sacrificially, giving themselves up for her. Since the husband is the head, he takes the lead, and Women in response are to willingly subject themselves to the lordship of their husbands. And if husbands truly loved their wives as Christ loves the church, I think most wives would have no trouble submitting to their husbands. That doesn't mean however that wives cannot make decisions, or that husbands never have to listen to their wives or that wives cannot take on leadership roles within their marriages. Just as the church submits to the Lordship of Christ, and He as the head gives her liberty to exercise her gifts and abilities to serve Him and others.

Please supply the scriptural evidence you are claiming that a husband is commanded to be the authority, lord(ship), leader, decision-maker, etc. over his wife. Surely if husbands are to maintain this position, there will be a command to do so.

The analogy is pretty clear, Sarah obeyed her husband, she called him Lord. Husbands don't call their wives "Lord" do they? Just because the Lord told Abraham to listen to his wife, doesn't change the fact that Sarah was subject to Abraham. In fact God had to tell Abraham to listen to Sarah, because that was not the norm for him to do so. And because God is the head of man, Abraham had to obey God in that instance.

Husbands don't call their wives "Lord" do they?

If you are claiming women are called to obey their husbands because of this verse, are you also commanded to call him lord as Sarah did? Or can we just take what we want from a verse and leave the rest behind? Should wives call their husbands, lord???

Sarah listened to Abraham (G5219) that is, to listen attentively and Abraham was told by God to do whatever Sarah told him. The reason God had to enforce Sarah's order to Abraham is because he didn't want to see Hagar and Ishmael leave. It had nothing to do with headship. Hagar had acted disrespectfully by mocking.

Now Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, mocking. Therefore she said to Abraham, "Drive out this maid and her son, for the son of this maid shall not be an heir with my son Isaac." The matter distressed Abraham greatly because of his son.Gen 21:9-11

God is the head of man, Abraham had to obey God in that instance.

Only in that instance?

Suffice it to say that I do not agree with the study you posted, the woman completely ignores the context of the passages and focuses solely on the meaning of one word. I don't have time at the moment to look at the other studies and don't really want to continue a debate about it here, Since that isn't what the OP is about. If you want to start a thread in the debate section then sure, I'll carry on over there.

The study focused primarily on the meaning of one word since that is the word the entire erroneous "headship" teaching is based on.

RT, with all due respect, it seems you have practiced a system of selective literalism. Taking some verses literally, and other which contradict them are discounted.

If you do a search in the debate sections, I have no doubt this topic has been discussed many times. And you will probably find the same "selective literalism" and methods of "implying" or "stands to reason" support without concrete evidence to support this error that encourages a hierarchy in the lives of believers regardless of concrete evidence to the contrary.

You have already discounted the study I linked to even though it is an exhaustive one with credible references because it focused on the primary controversial word and because it was written by a woman, I doubt you will accept any further study although I would hope you would. The other two and many more were provided by learned scholars and they are men.

I'm aware of the Matt Slick's analysis of the very same word "head" the entire teaching of authority seems to rest. Absent from his overview is a command to husbands to act as leader, authority, decision maker, etc. This is an important and obvious omission.

However, good hermeneutic requires at least some scriptural evidence that such authority is designated to husbands. Have you found one scripture that tells husbands to do anything other than follow Christ's example of expressing his love by giving up His very life for the sake of his wife?

If we want to continue with a one-word, one-verse type analysis to arrive at whose in charge, let's use 1 Tim. 5:14. In an effort to argue that women have the authority (not only in the bedroom) but over all in the home.

I desire therefore that the younger widows marry, bear children, rule (G3616) the household, give none occasion to the adversary for reviling....1Tim. 5:14

G3616oikodespoteōFrom G3617; to be the head of (that is, rule) a family:

Using the same selective literalism as is used for interpreting "head" literally, we arrive at these truths that are not optional, but rather commands:

1) this applies not only to just widows, but...2) they must be young3) they must marry4) they must have children (whether they are able or not)5) they must "rule" the household and family (not just the kitchen)6) by following Paul's wishes, the adversary will be silenced and held in check

Slick focuses a good deal refuting the "source" belief. But it's fairly obvious in this passage that origin or source is not so far fetched as he believes.1Co 11:11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 1Co 11:12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.

But as most complementarians do, he prefers to focus on the word "head." Is it really logical, reasonable, or good exegesis to base an entire doctrine on one word where the idea of an authority meaning is contradicted by the same Paul who in the same letter to the Corinthians just a couple chapters previously commanded mutual authority and mutual agreement?

Amen Abiding!My wife and I gets along very well and its never was, "I am the head".... We have always been a team. There is a scripture I believe that says, Two shall be One. Ive seen so many christian wives complaining about their husband who's been controlling over them abusively, very demanding, bossy, etc.....no wonder theres so many divorces in the church today...but there are some woman I know who are very controlling as well and their marriages are just horrible....Ive always believe we are to be a team with the same authority.

Colossians 3:18 18 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

Titus 2:3-5 3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, 4 so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.

1 Peter 3:1-6 1 In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, 2 as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. 3 Your adornment must not be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; 4 but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands; 6 just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.

The reasons for a wife to submit to her husband are given:

1. because it is fitting in the Lord.2. So that the word of God will not be dishonored.3. so that the disobedient husband can be won by the pure and respectful behavior of their wives.

Resurrection Torchlight wrote:The command is not to the husband, the command is to the wife.

So husbands take their position of leader, authority, decision-maker, etc. by default? Am I to believe that in the 66 inspired books of the Bible by 40 authors over a 7,000 or so yr. period, God neglected to give this command to husbands? And yet some feel they are entitled regardless of any scriptural evidence? I personally find that incredible.

RT, what do those verses mean to you? What is the practical application in the lives of husbands and wives? Where is the application of submission defined; i.e. who takes out the garbage? Who does the cooking? Who disciplines the children? Who mows the lawn? Who shops for groceries and clothing? Who decides where to worship? Who drives the car to school or church?

Obviously, there is no defined role for wives or their husbands or we would find them in scripture. Both are members of the Body of Christ and as such are to provide love, grace, companionship, and service to one another.

As I mentioned before, both have equal authority over one another in the area of sexual intimacy and cannot override the other. There must be agreement. This clearly is mutuality in marriage.

And the verse some love to ignore also speaks of mutual submission. (Eph 5:21)

Now, I'm not going to list all 50 or so scriptures that define behaviors and attitudes between all members of the body, but surely it would be a stretch to say they didn't apply to husbands and wives.

I'll list a number of them in the next post and perhaps you can tell me which don't apply to married couples.

Colossians 3:16 - admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs

1 Thessalonians 3:12 - Abound in love toward one another

1 Thessalonians 4:18 - Comfort one another

1Thessalonians 5:11 Encourage one another and build up one another

1Thessalonians 5:13 Live in peace with one another.

1 Pet 1:22 Love one another deeply, from the heart.

1 Pet 3:8 Live in harmony with one another

1Pet 4:8 Above all, keep fervent in your love for one another

1 Pet 4:9 Offer hospitality to one another

1Pet 4:10 Serve each other.

1 Pet 5:5 Show humility toward one another

And there arose also a dispute among them as to which one of them was regarded to be greatest. And He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called 'Benefactors.' "But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant...." Luke 22:24-26

Abiding, it seems to me that you have chosen to agree with a definition of a word based on your own agenda. How do you see the verses I posted? How can you deny what they say, wives are to submit to their husbands? I am not the one saying it, scripture is. The propensity for men is to lead, there is no need to give man a command to do so, and yes Adam and Eve sinned, and there were lasting consequences :

Genesis 3:16 16 To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.”

These consequences were for all mankind, and yes women still bear children in pain, unless of course drugs are used, but drugs merely mask the pain, they do not cure the pain. So it is that man will rule over the woman, the consequence doesn't go away because we live in the political era of gender equality. Men do not need a command to lead, they are leaders by nature. Just like women don't need a command to nurture, because by nature they do so. Everything around us tells us these ideas are true, history tells us, human nature tells us, and God tells us. As I said when Paul instructs couples he is giving them the remedy for the consequence of Adam and Eve's sin, the remedy that comes in Christ, and that is that husbands need to love their wives sacrificially, and live with her in an understanding way realizing that she is the weaker vessel. And wives are to submit to their husbands as head over them. The passage says that the man is head of the woman and Christ is head of the man, yes it is true that woman originates from man and man from God, but the passage also says:

Ephesians 5:22-30 22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body. 31 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.

It is pretty clear that the point is that wives are to be subject to their husband, as the church is subject to Christ. The husband who is not by nature a nurturer, is told to love his wife like Christ loves the church, like he loves his own body, nourishing his wife and cherishing her. And the wife to subject herself willingly to her husband. Your selective definition of the word "head" does not change the meaning of the rest of the passage?

As for this passage:

1 Corinthians 7:1-6 1 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 3 The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But this I say by way of concession, not of command.

This refers to physical intimacy.In the matter of sexual relations, neither husband or wife are to deprive one another, neither wife nor husband has the authority to dictate to the other in that regard. It is not talking about the structure of marriage. The authority here is specifically in regard to sexual intimacy.

I am not sure if there are circumstances in your life that cause you to lean toward an alternate definition, and why you are so averse to the idea of wives willingly submitting to their husbands. Yes scripture says that when a man marries a woman the two become one, just like when we believe in Christ we become one with Christ. By the way, the last time I checked the head is part of the body, the head doesn't neglect the body. I would say it goes beyond teamwork, the husband and wife function as if they are one body. The wife though subject to the husband, is integral to the relationship, and is not to be treated harshly by her husband. Christ is the head over the church, He is preeminent, He leads us, he guides us, not in ways that will hurt us or harm us, but in ways that are to benefit us and sanctify us. And we as the body follow His leadership, because we know His intentions and actions toward us are born in true love. If you want to know what a marriage should be like, look to Christ's relationship with His bride as the example. That is the point of the passage.

Personally I think as a wife, I have the easier role, my husband has a far greater responsibility as the head, than I do. For the most part I do not want to share in his authority, I am glad that he takes the lead. That does not mean that I cannot challenge his decisions at times, if I believe he is going in the wrong direction, I will speak up and he would want me to and will thank me for it. We also work together when making big decisions that will effect our lives in more serious ways. I also do exercise leadership in many ways, financial and practical mostly, he is okay with that too. But It does not mean that he has the right to force me to go against my conscience, or to task me with things he knows are beyond my ability. He knows what I am capable of, and I know what he is capable of, we do work together. Neither of us performs our roles perfectly, and ultimately we must both defer to Christ as our ultimate authority and forgive each other and look to Christ for forgiveness when we fail. And fail we shall, because we still abide in the fallen nature of our flesh. Marriage like everything else in our lives is a work in progress.

Resurrection Torchlight wrote:Abiding, it seems to me that you have chosen to agree with a definition of a word based on your own agenda.

I have tried to take the whole counsel of God, historically, contextually, with emphasis on the intent of the author as well as how it would be understood by the hearers to whom they were spoken.

How do you see the verses I posted? How can you deny what they say, wives are to submit to their husbands? I am not the one saying it, scripture is.

You have not replied to the many verses I've posted that refute a hierarchical position between a husband and wife, but emphasize mutual loving, caring, deferring, respecting, and submitting.

The propensity for men is to lead, there is no need to give man a command to do so

Really, RT? We endorse male leadership and "headship" based on a male's propensity to lead? Scripture is replete with the male's propensity for multiple marriages, adultery, sending their wives away in favor of another, etc. so we should endorse such propensity? God himself warned about the eventual and certain abuse that would be the result of some ruling over others and we see it confirmed throughout scripture. To endorse a doctrine or practice based on a "propensity" is sheer folly. The absence of such an endorsement by God is very telling. No husband is given the authority to rule over or lead his wife unless scripture gives that directive.

I must continue to ask for scriptural support and without it, see this teaching as false in the absence of such evidence.

yes Adam and Eve sinned, and there were lasting consequences :Genesis 3:16 16 To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.”

These consequences were for all mankind, and yes women still bear children in pain, unless of course drugs are used, but drugs merely mask the pain, they do not cure the pain.

So it wasn't a command that a woman must have pain. She is free, thanks to medical advances, to alleviate that pain and many give birth totally free due to other methods of delivery. Women no longer have to give birth in a field or under primitive conditions that led to many infant/mother deaths, but enjoy the comfort and safety of sterile hospital under the professional supervision of those skilled and licensed in the appropriate field.

And the following verses surrounding command sweat, toil of the ground, eating plants, and thorns and thistles. Does this negate careers in air-conditioned offices or must men remain in an agricultural field in order to toil the ground and sweat. Must our earth be filled with thorns and thistles since God commanded it? And must we still eat plants or can we abide by God progressive corrections toward redemption when He changed the "plant" diet to include meat?

How does picking out one adverse, negative prophetic word from the context and creating a forever doctrine not reflect selective literalism? We will believe select/certain verses to be literal where we want to without consideration of the surrounding verses.

Bottom line, RT, is that if Gen. 3:16 is a forever command and/or consequence that we must abide by, then so is Gen. 17, 18, and 19 and they must be obeyed forever.

So it is that man will rule over the woman, the consequence doesn't go away because we live in the political era of gender equality.

As mentioned above, then neither do the other consequences go away.

Men do not need a command to lead, they are leaders by nature.

The world is full of female leaders. Physicians, lawyers, scientists, professors, teachers, CEO's and entrepreneurs many of whom are have large staffs.

Just like women don't need a command to nurture, because by nature they do so.

Isa 46:3 "Listen to Me, O house of Jacob, And all the remnant of the house of Israel, You who have been borne by Me from birth And have been carried from the womb....

Isa 49:15 "Can a woman forget her nursing child And have no compassion on the son of her womb? Even these may forget, but I will not forget you.

Psa 91:4 He will cover you with His pinions, And under His wings you may seek refuge...

Psa 131:2 But I have calmed and quieted my soul, like a weaned child with its mother; like a weaned child is my soul within me.

Mat 23:37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

1Thess. 2:7 But we proved to be gentle among you, as a nursing mother tenderly cares for her own children.

God is kind, loving, long suffering, compassionate and nurturing toward us. Jesus likewise showed his concerns about the treatment of outcasts, oppressed; those who were hungry, thirsty, burdened and sorrowful. How he loved children and expressed his concern about those who would mistreat them. These traits are not male or female. They are fruit of the spirit and virtues of all God's people regardless of age, gender, ethnicity. Stereotyping is horrible imho.

To associate nurturing, strength, wisdom, goodness, kindness, etc. to either male or female denies scripture to the contrary. Each of us are unique and chosen members of the royal priesthood and co-heirs with Christ.

Abiding in His Word wrote:Here's another clear, precise scripture....Col 3:21 Fathers, do not exasperate your children, so that they will not lose heart.Eph 6:4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger....If we apply a "default" or "implies" method of interpretation, Paul has only told fathers to avoid exasperating their children but since mothers aren't mentioned, they are exempt from this command.

It's not as if RT has supplied scripture that just implies, or speaks as by default, they are indeed, Very Direct.

Is not what you are suggesting..."but since mothers aren't mentioned, they are exempt from this command", an Argument from Silence?

The scriptures RT Has Provided are very direct and clear, as I've already said.Can you name one place where a Woman has laid there hands on their Child , or Anyone for that matter, and Pronounced a Prophetic Blessing upon them as the Head of their Household?

Is there such a place in scripture?

The Wisest men have changed their Counsels and Resolves upon second thoughts, much more upon experience, and approaching evils not at first discovered. Rev. Herbert Croft, 1675

Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

Your logic is just a bit off here. Christians choose to submit to God. We spend our lives trying to work out that submission. In the Kingdom of Heaven we are subjects. Subjects, a noun, describing those who are subjected. We subject ourselves. It is not forced upon us.

So there is a hierarchy. We as Christians choose to be a part of that hierarchy. God has established the hierarchy, Christ is King of Kings, Lord of Lords. We choose to subject ourselves to our King and our Lord.

In this world, we are involuntarily subjected to hierarchies setup by God, governments.In the Kingdom of God, we voluntarily subject ourselves to the hierarchies established by God.

Resurrection Torchlight is saying she recognizes the hierarchy established for husbands and wives and she chooses to submit to that hierarchy. She is not saying it is imposed upon her as governments are imposed upon us, she is saying she submits to the hierarchy. She is not saying that her husband imposes rule. She is saying she is submitting to roles established in a hierarchy.

Your arguments is this: If a hierarchy is voluntary, it does not exist. This is a fallacy.You are mistaken, the hierarchy between husband and wife does exist. You are correct, it is not imposed. It is voluntary subjection. Nevertheless it is subjection.

Keith, I have not appealed to the logic of anything other than scriptural evidence that wives are not subject in any other or different way than every other believer. One cannot deduce a one-way-submission to when the evidence clearly notes a unilateral, mutual submission. Again....

In Ephesians 5, Paul addresses the benefits and virtue of being filled with the Spirit as opposed to being filled with wine. He lists a "string of participles" that all flow out of being filled with the Spirit.

* addressing one another in psalms, and hymns and spiritual songs* singing and* making melodies* giving thanks always to God* submitting to one another

They are not imperatives (or we would be commanded to sing to one another) but are the gracious, natural, behaviors that flow from being filled with the Holy Spirit.

Wives are part of the congregation being addressed as are husbands, singles, teens, etc. The submission mentioned to wives is no different than that mentioned to all other spirit-filled believers.

Please notice the verse many claim is specific to wives:

Eph 5:21 and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ. Eph 5:22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

The words "be subject" have been added by some translations and several even go to far as to erroneously insert the words "under the authority" of your husband. But the additions have caused this idea of hierarchy where both Jesus and Paul refute such power over others in the body of Christ. You cannot read the over 50 scriptures that refer to the behaviors that flow from being filled with the Holy Spirit and come away with this exception. After all, Paul just confirmed this "one another" submission in verse 5:21.

The passage in Ephesians speaks of the love, and nourishment the body of Christ receives as a result of the self-sacrifice of Christ. There is nothing in the passage about authority and Christ even calls us friends. He calls Himself the Good Shepherd who lays down His life for the sheep. He demonstrates His love for us in that while we were yet sinners, He died for us. The greatest love one can have is love that lays down his life for another.

It does not speak of authority. The only place that mentions authority in the context of marriage is in 1 Cor. 7 where it is mutual and agreement is mutual.

We should not forget that God warned the Israelites of the negative consequences of their wish to have a king with power to rule over them and can see the evil and abuse as a result of their insistence. Traces of the desire for power is evidenced in the NT especially by the Pharisees, and Jesus' radical gracious, compassionate treatment of women even confused His disciples. With the birth of the church at Pentecost (Acts 2), both men and women experienced the fulfillment of Joel 2 and received the Holy Spirit and gifts. No mention of male/female gifts and Paul shares the desired edification of the church in an assembly where each exercises their gift for the growth and edification of all. (1 Cor. 14:15)

The teachings that women are subordinate, must be silent, must wear head coverings, must submit to their husband's authority/leadership, and slaves must submit to their masters, etc. are so contrary to the redemption and freedom afforded the gentiles, slaves, and women in scripture. In the same way the Galatians objected to the conversion of the gentile Greeks, some continue to maintain the barriers between the genders, but Paul refutes the divisions by reminding them that these divisions no longer to exist.

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:26-28

But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.Gal 2:4-5

keithareilly wrote:Christ is the husband of his bride, the church. Christ, the husband, has authority over her and serves her, granter her life itself.

See my comments above, Keith. Scripture speaks of Christ's sacrifice of His life and nourisher of the church. That is the example Paul tells husbands to emulate. The submission between the husband and wife is mutual. Eph. 5:21

Why do you perceive a conflict between a husband having authority over his bride and also serving her?

Because you haven't provided a scripture where husbands are told to have authority over his wife. Jesus is the head which nourishes the body... and He is the head which causes the growth.

Col 2:19..... and not holding fast to the head, from whom the entire body, being supplied and held together by the joints and ligaments, grows with a growth which is from God.

Scripture does not say to us husbands to subject our wives. We are not to have a tyrannical relationship with our wives.Instead, scriptures says to wives be subject to your husbands. Implicit in this statement is for wives to recognize or grant authority over themselves to their husband. It also implies we as husbands must accept that responsibility whether we want it or not. In the end we can only take what authority a wife is willing to grant us. That is also implied in the verse.

If Christ becomes the head of a widow, replacing her husband who was once head, what does that tell you about the hierarchy of the husband wife relationship?

In this world, the servants are at the bottom of the hierarchy.In the Kingdom of Heaven, the greatest servants are at the top; thus, as you climb the hierarchy, the servitude is greater.

keithareilly wrote:Other have provided verses, you are not able to accept them.

If such a command for husbands to be the authority over his wife has been posted, please refresh my memory. I only find commands to love their wives and give themselves up for them....nothing more.

Scripture does not say to us husbands to subject our wives. We are not to have a tyrannical relationship with our wives.

Agreed.

Instead, scriptures says to wives be subject to your husbands. Implicit in this statement is for wives to recognize or grant authority over themselves to their husband.

It's this "implicit" method of interpretation that's causing much misunderstanding. The rule of correct exegesis is that when a word or verse contradicts others, we must search further for the understanding and clarification of the difficult one. To "imply" a husband has authority over his wife without scriptural evidence leads to an erroneous assumption. Wives are not subject in any different way than every other believer is subject to one another.

Eph 5:21 clearly states submission is mutual between all believers which includes husbands, wives, teens, singles, widows, males, females, etc. without difference. It also does not speak of authority or leadership of one to another.

Aside from that one verse, I mentioned the overall context of Eph. 5 and again, glaringly absent is any mention of authority as is true of over 50 one-another behaviors throughout the Bible that contradict the concept of a hierarchy between members of the body.

It also implies we as husbands must accept that responsibility whether we want it or not.

Are you calling the command to love your wife and lay down your life for her (as Christ did for the church) a responsibility?

In the end we can only take what authority a wife is willing to grant us.

You've just given the wife the power over the husband, haven't you?

That is also implied in the verse.

That's that "implied" method of interpretation again that is comparable to reading something that's just not there, Keith.

If Christ becomes the head of a widow, replacing her husband who was once head, what does that tell you about the hierarchy of the husband wife relationship?

Oh my, Keith Jesus is the head of all believers regardless of their race, creed, ethnicity, gender, or marital status. He emptied Himself. He humbled Himself. He came to serve. He never encouraged authority and even spoke very harshly to those who wanted it (Pharisees) and told His disciples that "it shall not be so with you." This is Christianity 101 imho.

In this world, the servants are at the bottom of the hierarchy.

And who is at the top of the hierarchy in this world. Jesus told us that His kingdom is not of this world. We do not operate in the same manner that the world does. The world will know we are Christians by our love for one another, not by our position in a hierarchy.

In the Kingdom of Heaven, the greatest servants are at the top; thus, as you climb the hierarchy, the servitude is greater.

I don't understand the concept of "climbing a hierarchy" anywhere ...either in this world or in the Kingdom of Heaven. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by this.

It's this "implicit" method of interpretation that's causing much misunderstanding. The rule of correct exegesis is that when a word or verse contradicts others, we must search further for the understanding and clarification of the difficult one. To "imply" a husband has authority over his wife without scriptural evidence leads to an erroneous assumption. Wives are not subject in any different way than every other believer is subject to one another.

There exists no conflict. You perceive a conflict where no conflict exists.There is no conflict between heads and tales, right and left, up and down, inside and outside, they coexist together.A complete coin has a heads and a tails. A complete husband has authority and servitude.

keithareilly wrote:There is no conflict between heads and tales, right and left, up and down, inside and outside, they coexist together.A complete coin has a heads and a tails.

Keith, we're not discussing inanimate objects or scientific theories here. We're discussing scripture and the relationship between human beings who are married to one another.

A complete husband has authority and servitude.

I've already discussed Eph. 5 in context now let me provide another chapter in context. Let's look at 1 Cor. 7 which has a good many verses that show the same mutuality between husbands and wives.

2: ....each man should have his own wife....and each woman her own husband

3...the husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife...and likewise the wife to her husband

5...neither should deprive the other except by mutual consent/agreement for a time

11....a husband must not divorce his wife10....a wife must not separate from her husband

12 ....if a brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her13....if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him

14...for the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife ....and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband

15....but if the unbeliever leaves, let him leave. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to peace

16 ....how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?....how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband

32....an unmarried man is concerned about the things of the Lord....an unmarried woman is concerned about the things of the Lord

33....the married man is concerned about how he may please his wife34....the married woman is concerned about how she may please her husband

There is one more interesting (culturally radical) point Paul made when he said that both men and women can be concerned about the things of the Lord. Rabbi's teaching excluded women from the spiritual life of the community for the most part and weren't allowed to even learn the Torah if I'm not mistaken. Paul was opening ministries to women previously denied them and in chapter 14 confirms that each member can participate in an assembly which was revolutionary for female Jewish converts.

I'm sorry....I see no entitlement or privileges for one partner in the marriage, but mutual for both.

Abiding, you are mixing apples and oranges, Eph. 5:21, talks about the body of believers being subject to one another in the fear of the Lord. As a body of believers, the church is to get along, encourage each other, serve one another, look out for each other, etc.... so that we can function together as a body,See Gal 5:13; Phil 2:3; 1 Pet 5:5 When the church body interacts they are to behave as such.

Ephesians 5:21 21 and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.

But then husbands and wives are addressed, this is a different relationship, a change in the conversation. Paul first addresses the behavior of those within the local body of believers, how they are to interact with each other so that they can function in unity as the body made up of many members in the body of Christ. Then he addresses how husbands and wives are to interact with each other so that they can function in unity as one body, made up of husband and wife. I think that what Paul is pointing out is that within the church, people are to submit to each other, giving preference to one another in Christ, But with couples who are married, the wife needs to submit to her husband first. It isn't a contradiction, but rather a statement of if- then.

In other words, you could state it this way: In the church you are to submit to each other, but if you are married, then wives need submit to their husbands.

Even if you take out the words "be subject" in verse 22, it does not change what appears in verse 24, which clearly states wives ought to be subject to their husbands in everything. The meaning is clear and does not contradict, what other meaning could there possibly be? It is your definition that contradicts.

Ephesians 5:22-24 22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

And as if that isn't enough Paul adds the following to the end of the passage which confirms what he meant:

Ephesians 5:33 33 Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.

That word "respect" means "to fear", it is the same word used in verse 21 speaking of the "fear of the Lord". Wives are to revere their husbands.

It is the same word used by Peter:1 Peter 3:1-2 1 In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, 2 as they observe your chaste and [u]respectful behavior. [/u]

Note that the very act of being submissive is what is deemed as chaste and respectful behavior.

It isn't an issue of entitlement or privilege, it is an issue of obedience to Christ, so that our marriages will be harmonious and so that we will be a testimony to the younger generation, as Sarah was for us.

1 Peter 3:4-9 4 but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands; 6 just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear. 7 You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered. 8 To sum up, all of you be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit; 9 not returning evil for evil or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing.

Note that what is means to submit is clarified in verse 6, Sarah "obeyed" Abraham, and called him "Lord". Of course we don't go around calling our husbands "Lord", the point is that we are to view them that way.

Interestingly verse 6 also says that we are like Sarah if we do what is right without being frightened by any fear. That second use of the word "fear" is a different word than used in the other passages, it means "terror". So in other words, we do what is right when we as wives submit to our husbands because we revere and respect them, not because we are terrorized by them. Which I think is an important point to be made, because as you have said, many men have used these passages to justify the abusive treatment of their wives, which is not at all what Paul or Peter are advocating. In fact the husband is to honor his wife as a fellow heir in Christ,living with her in an understanding way, he is not entitled to treat her any different than he would want to be treated himself.

1 Corinthians 11:33 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife[a] is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

Ephesians 5:22-2422 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

This is the hierarchy established in scripture.God|Christ|Husband|Wife

You say this is the hierarchy

God|Christ|Husband, Wife

Teaching this latter structure or any other structure or no structure is contrary scripture. It is an apostasy.

As I said before, the verse teaches women to subject themselves. It does not teach men to subject their wives.Christ does not force us to obey, He encourages us to obey and we struggle to obey, to overcome the reign of sin within. Likewise women will struggle to submit to a husband. Husbands will struggle to be patient and will encourage her by serving her and the family as Christ serves the church.

1 Corinthians is clear about the structure. It is spelled out for all to see.

Resurrection Torchlight wrote:Abiding, you are mixing apples and oranges, Eph. 5:21, talks about the body of believers being subject to one another in the fear of the Lord. As a body of believers, the church is to get along, encourage each other, serve one another, look out for each other, etc.... so that we can function together as a body,See Gal 5:13; Phil 2:3; 1 Pet 5:5 When the church body interacts they are to behave as such.

Paul doesn't mention the church per se, RT, until he refers Christ's self-sacrifice out of love for the church as the example of the self-sacrifice husbands should emulate. He's speaking to all believers who should not be filled with wine, but with the Holy Spirit and those behaviors will flow as a result of the infilling. I have posted this several times, but it best takes the chapter in context.

Paul addresses the benefits and virtue of being filled with the Spirit as opposed to being filled with wine. He lists a "string of participles" that all flow out of being filled with the Spirit.

* addressing one another in psalms, and hymns and spiritual songs* singing and* making melodies* giving thanks always to God* submitting to one another

They are not imperatives (or we would be commanded to sing to one another) but are the gracious, natural, behaviors that flow from being filled with the Holy Spirit.

Wives are included in those being addressed as are husbands, singles, teens, etc. The submission mentioned to wives is no different than that mentioned to all other spirit-filled believers. But for husbands to lay down their very wives as Christ did for His church was the example for them to follow.

He continues to speak to children and they are to obey both parents and honor both father and mother equally. And he speaks to slaves and admonishes their masters to stop threatening them as their Master (and ours) shows no partiality.

Ephesians 5:21 21 and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.

But then husbands and wives are addressed, this is a different relationship, a change in the conversation. Paul first addresses the behavior of those within the local body of believers, how they are to interact with each other so that they can function in unity as the body made up of many members in the body of Christ. Then he addresses how husbands and wives are to interact with each other so that they can function in unity as one body, made up of husband and wife. I think that what Paul is pointing out is that within the church, people are to submit to each other, giving preference to one another in Christ, But with couples who are married, the wife needs to submit to her husband first. It isn't a contradiction, but rather a statement of if- then.

Are you saying that Paul's words to be subject to one another include everyone except husbands?

In other words, you could state it this way: In the church you are to submit to each other, but if you are married, then wives need submit to their husbands.

Are you receiving a commission from a group of husbands for exempting them from submitting one to another?

Seriously, married people ARE the church as are singles, widows, teens, divorced, disabled, and babies. The church isn't a building or a place, it's people. There is currently an epidemic of authority-seekers and rule-makers who are separating the church from the members and the clergy from the laity and the husbands from the wives, etc. One complementarian, Owen Strachan recently tweeted that Satan hates testosterone! He further tweeted that "you can't blame him--after all, he's seen it used to crush his head" Can you imagine? It evidently wasn't Jesus sinless life, death, divinity, and resurrection that defeated Satan. It was testosterone!

Even if you take out the words "be subject" in verse 22, it does not change what appears in verse 24, which clearly states wives ought to be subject to their husbands in everything. The meaning is clear and does not contradict, what other meaning could there possibly be? It is your definition that contradicts.

"Be subject to one another" means be subject to one another. We know Ephesus was where the great temple of Artemis where both women and men worshiped celebrated her beauty. The cult of Diana provided great sums of money for those who crafted statues of this goddess. Women used their sexual prowess, clothing and jewelry to gain power over men. You can read a more detailed overview of this cult in Ephesus here and hopefully come away with a better understanding of why Paul mentioned wives in Ephesus. Regardless, there is absolutely no mention of authority anywhere in scripture other than 1 Cor. 7 as I showed above and it is clearly mutual.

I don't think I'm contradicting or defining, but I can understand why you might think that since I'm refusing to read authority into any scripture based on implications or assumptions. I don't know why you see submission to one another as excluding husbands. That's an assumption.

1 Peter 3:1-2 1 In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, 2 as they observe your chaste and [u]respectful behavior. [/u]

Note that the very act of being submissive is what is deemed as chaste and respectful behavior.

RT, you are separating a verse out of the context to evidently prove a different kind of submission that all believers show to one another. In it's context, notice the words, "In the same way" you wives. And husbands "In the same way".... So YES it's behavior Paul is concerned about as it will be observed by the gentiles.

Keep your behavior excellent among the Gentiles, so that in the thing in which they slander you as evildoers, they may because of your good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation. Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. 1 Peter 2:12-15

It isn't an issue of entitlement or privilege, it is an issue of obedience to Christ, so that our marriages will be harmonious and so that we will be a testimony to the younger generation, as Sarah was for us.

RT, when authority is delegated to an individual, it is normally delegated as the result of having earned that elevated position based on some criteria which entitles that individual to hold that position over others. If it's a matter of obedience to Christ as you say, then there must be such a command for a husband's authority for him to be obedient to.

I keep asking for evidence of a husband's authority over his wife and you (and others) keep responding with the wife's submission. I agree that the wife is to submit just as all believers are to submit to one another. Her submission cannot be different than all other submission to one-another unless you are 1) delegating an unauthorized authority to the husband, and 2) exempting the husband from the Eph. 5:21 mutual submission enjoined upon all believers.

And what hasn't been answered for me, is what does that submission that you see as different than other submission, entail? If you see the gospel as defining rules and regulations for marriage, what does that mean in practical terms? Who changes the baby's diapers; fixes the meals; decides who can go to school to earn a Ph.d; who determines what neighborhood the family will reside in; etc. In other words, since you have apparently delegated authority to husbands, what does that authority entail? We know that it does not apply in the sexual arena because mutual authority applies there.

I still am asking for scripture for such authority, rule, leadership, decision-making, etc. and would like to know on what basis that authority would be designated for a husband when Paul did not mention any such thing but rather mutual loving, caring, respect, and submission.

1 Corinthians 11:33 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife[a] is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

In these verse we see:1) God Has Authority over Christ.2) Christ has authority over every man.3) A woman's husband has authority over his wife.

The authority comes with the position in an organizational hierarchy.Thus when a woman is widowed, she is no subordinate to a husband within the hierarchy.This topic is about roles; Roles are a product of position within an organization.

I am a man. I am subject to Christ, Christ has authority over me. Why? because my position in the hierarchy is subordinate to Christ.Christ called the disciples his friends, no longer his servants (John 15:15) Yet, because they are men they are still subordinate to Christ because of the hierarchy.The disciples have a role to play for their friend, Christ, and that role entails submitting to their friend's authority.

This topic is not about equality. It is about roles played by people who just might be friends.

Abiding in His Word wrote:I still am asking for scripture for such authority, rule, leadership, decision-making, etc. and would like to know on what basis that authority would be designated for a husband when Paul did not mention any such thing but rather mutual loving, caring, respect, and submission.

Interesting conversation here. I am in a agreement with both views actually, as to the responsibilities of mutual submission, and to the authority of the husband granted IN Christ. Here is the most important aspect not being addressed here I believe. For the husband to have the authority Christ has over the Church he must be willing to lay down his life for her, his wife. His conduct must always be within the concept of not only loving her as he loves himself, but of loving her more than he loves his own life, should the occasion arise where he would be called to defend her. This is basic humanity but defined by Christ, how He is IN Himself, how He is for His Church, His Bride. Here is the greatest love possible on Earth, laying down one's life for another, and in this is the responsibility of the granted authority the husband, to love his wife not only as himself, but to love her enough to lay down his life for her. A wife is not given this responsibility in the marriage, the husband is. That does not mean she can't or won't do that, just that it's not her responsibility to do so. So the greater the love the greater the servitude, agreeing with Keith here.

God bless You

David

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God

keithareilly wrote:1 Corinthians 11:33 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife[a] is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

Keith, I've only found one version of the Bible (out of my 11) that interprets that verse as "wife and husband" and that is the ESV. Is that where you found that verse? Because all others read it as "the man is the head of a woman" which makes perfect sense in context as Adam (the man) was the source of Eve (the woman).

In these verse we see:1) God Has Authority over Christ.2) Christ has authority over every man.3) A woman's husband has authority over his wife.

I disagree since there is no mention of authority unless "that word" (head) has reared it's ugly head (pun intended) again and interpreted to mean authority. Paul was surely articulate enough to say authority if he meant authority.

1) God is the source/origin of Jesus (as Jesus left Him to be born of a woman) as our Savior2) Christ is the source/origin of every man (in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. (John 1:1-3) Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into His hands, and that He had come forth from God and was going back to God....John 13:3 3) The man (Adam) is the source/origin of the woman(Eve)

Again, no mention of authority especially in the Godhead. Jesus said if we see Him, we see the Father. He was for awhile lower than the angels (Heb. 2:7) in fulfillment of Psalm 8:5.

Paul clarifies and confirms the meaning of the passage as source/origin by following with these verses and using that very word.

- For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; (verse 8) - For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. (verse 12)

And lest anyone think more highly of himself that he ought in assuming first is better, Paul levels the playing field by reminding them that...

However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.1Cor. 11:11-12

The authority comes with the position in an organizational hierarchy.Thus when a woman is widowed, she is no subordinate to a husband within the hierarchy.This topic is about roles; Roles are a product of position within an organization.

Keith, may I ask where and why you think this position of authority was delegated to a husband? Did a husband earn this position and if so, how? If you truly believe it was bestowed upon males simply because they are males, then we shouldn't believe scripture that states God shows no partiality. (Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6; Eph. 6:9; 1 Peter 1:17)

If God prefers men to be the authority over their wives, you must provide scriptural evidence that does not contradict the passages I've posted.

I am a man. I am subject to Christ, Christ has authority over me. Why? because my position in the hierarchy is subordinate to Christ.

Are women not subject to Christ?

Christ called the disciples his friends, no longer his servants (John 15:15)

Agreed.

Yet, because they are men they are still subordinate to Christ because of the hierarchy.The disciples have a role to play for their friend, Christ, and that role entails submitting to their friend's authority.

Just to clarify, I hope you're not saying that chapters 13-14-15-16 are written specifically to men because they were Jesus' words to His disciples, are you? Because they were, after all, Jews as well. And I hope you're not assuming some position of authority by virtue of Jesus' words to the disciples....kinda assuming they were being endowed with some authority and that's being passed on to you? Or that women are not subject to Christ in the same way men are subject to Christ?

This topic is not about equality. It is about roles played by people who just might be friends.

You are correct in that the word "roles" are nothing more than parts of a movie or play in which actions are "played" by each depending on the script. But we do not find scripture that determines specific activities designated to members of the body of Christ. In fact, following the fulfillment of Joel 2 and the beginning of the church at Pentecost, activities are mostly determined by the gifts and fruit of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the recipients where a pattern of one-anothering in behavior contributes to the growth and edification of all members.

Keith, I've only found one version of the Bible (out of my 11) that interprets that verse as "wife and husband" and that is the ESV. Is that where you found that verse? Because all others read it as "the man is the head of a woman" which makes perfect sense in context as Adam (the man) was the source of Eve (the woman).

Interesting, I had to go back and look at various versions. I use the ESV as a regular basis. Actually, because Eve was made as Adam's helpmate, I have always understood this verse to be husband and wife as the ESV says. A helpmate is a persons of equal status assisting in accomplishing another's agenda. Since this was the purpose for Eve's creation I have always assumed the subordination of the female sex as a consequence of husbands ruling over wives from Genesis 3:16. I have also assumed that the rule over your wives of Genesis 3:16 was done away and wives are now back to helpmate status - an equal, helping accomplish another's agenda. It is from that perspective from which I am posting.

As a helpmate assists in accomplishing the agenda of another, the one with the authority to set the agenda is the one being assisted. Consequently, we have verses instructing wives to be subject to their husbands. I see these verses as reminding women why Eve was created and to return to that original creation status if they are in the role of wife. I also understand that a woman is not a helpmate when she is not married and is free to set her own agenda.

If someone else sets your agenda, they have authority over you. Clearly, from Genesis 3:16, this is different than ruling over you as that came later. So note there is a distinction between having authority over you and ruling over you.

I am not supportive of the ruling over you interpretation but I am of the authority over you because of Eve's creation as Adam's helpmate, an equal helping accomplish another agenda.

Edited to addIt is like being an employee. I choose to go to work and submit myself to authority that determines my agenda for the time I am at work and while in that role I am subject to work related authority for the purpose of accomplishing another's agenda.

Keith

Last edited by keithareilly on Mon May 02, 2016 10:23 am, edited 5 times in total.

Abiding in His Word wrote:I still am asking for scripture for such authority, rule, leadership, decision-making, etc. and would like to know on what basis that authority would be designated for a husband when Paul did not mention any such thing but rather mutual loving, caring, respect, and submission.

Interesting conversation here. I am in a agreement with both views actually, as to the responsibilities of mutual submission, and to the authority of the husband granted IN Christ. Here is the most important aspect not being addressed here I believe. For the husband to have the authority Christ has over the Church he must be willing to lay down his life for her, his wife. His conduct must always be within the concept of not only loving her as he loves himself, but of loving her more than he loves his own life, should the occasion arise where he would be called to defend her. This is basic humanity but defined by Christ, how He is IN Himself, how He is for His Church, His Bride. Here is the greatest love possible on Earth, laying down one's life for another, and in this is the responsibility of the granted authority the husband, to love his wife not only as himself, but to love her enough to lay down his life for her. A wife is not given this responsibility in the marriage, the husband is. That does not mean she can't or won't do that, just that it's not her responsibility to do so. So the greater the love the greater the servitude, agreeing with Keith here.

I keep asking for evidence of a husband's authority over his wife and you (and others) keep responding with the wife's submission. I agree that the wife is to submit just as all believers are to submit to one another. Her submission cannot be different than all other submission to one-another unless you are 1) delegating an unauthorized authority to the husband, and 2) exempting the husband from the Eph. 5:21 mutual submission enjoined upon all believers.

Abiding, you keep asking, but the problem is that the evidence is there, you just choose to apply a different definition. The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of church. I disagree with your definition of the word "head". It's that simple. You seem to want to ignore or redifine the passage that actually explains what "headship means" :

Ephesians 5:24 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

1 Corinthians 11:1-15 1 Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. 4 Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. 5 But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. 10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

You also seem to only pay attention to the part of the verse that you feel backs up your claim. But you fail to realize that the passage itself does the opposite. When it clearly defines that man and woman are not equal. Man is not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, while woman should cover her head because she is the glory of man not the glory of God. That statement alone denotes a level of authority that the man has and the woman does not. The man does not need to cover his head with a symbol of authority, because he possesses the authority already, however the woman does have to have a symbol of authority on her head because she lacks that authority herself. The idea of origin is in fact not a proof of equality but a proof of inequality, which is clearly demonstrated in the different ways they are to present themselves while praying. The passage itself explains that man was not created for the woman's sake but woman for the man's sake, which clearly denotes inequality, and suggests man's authority over the woman. But man and woman are not independent from one another, because man cannot be born into existence unless a woman gives birth to him. They need each other. However, dependence on one another does not have any bearing on who has authority.

Keith, I've only found one version of the Bible (out of my 11) that interprets that verse as "wife and husband" and that is the ESV. Is that where you found that verse? Because all others read it as "the man is the head of a woman" which makes perfect sense in context as Adam (the man) was the source of Eve (the woman).

Interesting, I had to go back and look at various versions. I use the ESV as a regular basis. Actually, because Eve was made as Adam's helpmate, I have always understood this verse to be husband and wife as the ESV says. A helpmate is a persons of equal status assisting in accomplishing another's agenda. Since this was the purpose for Eve's creation I have always assumed the subordination of the female sex as a consequence of husbands ruling over wives from Genesis 3:16. I have also assumed that the rule over your wives of Genesis 3:16 was done away and wives are now back to helpmate status - an equal, helping accomplish another's agenda. It is from that perspective from which I am posting.

As a helpmate assists in accomplishing the agenda of another, the one with the authority to set the agenda is the one being assisted. Consequently, we have verses instructing wives to be subject to their husbands. I see these verses as reminding women why Eve was created and to return to that original creation status if they are in the role of wife. I also understand that a woman is not a helpmate when she is not married and is free to set her own agenda.

If someone else sets your agenda, they have authority over you. Clearly, from Genesis 3:16, this is different than ruling over you as that came later. So note there is a distinction between having authority over you and ruling over you.

I am not supportive of the ruling over you interpretation but I am of the authority over you because of Eve's creation as Adam's helpmate, an equal helping accomplish another agenda.

Edited to addIt is like being an employee. I choose to go to work and submit myself to authority that determines my agenda for the time I am at work and while in that role I am subject to work related authority for the purpose of accomplishing another's agenda.

Resurrection Torchlight wrote:Abiding, you keep asking, but the problem is that the evidence is there, you just choose to apply a different definition. The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of church. I disagree with your definition of the word "head". It's that simple. You seem to want to ignore or redifine the passage that actually explains what "headship means" :

The word head is used something like 67 times in the NT and only here is there an effort to interpret it as husband authority. But the same Paul who wrote Eph. recognized Jesus as the "head" over all authority (exousia). Paul knew the meaning of the word authority and did not use it in Eph. to delegate exousia to a husband. He did, however, use it to describe mutual exousia to both husband and wife in 1 Cor. 7 along with other mutual principles.

10 Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Again, words inserted that confuse the equal, mutual standing of the husband and wife and their interdependence on one another. Paul refutes the practice of wearing a covering as a sign of authority by correcting this perception of equating her with a woman whose head was shaven; i.e. a prostitute? He corrects this view by saying that her hair is covering her. And note that these verses contradict those who steadfastly adhere to silence for women in churches as these women are praying and prophesying. When you remove the inserted words, it is the woman who ought to have her own authority.

11 However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12 For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.

Did you agree with the context of "source" and/or "origin?" And do you agree Paul was showing their interdependence on one another without any mention of giving one authority over the other?

13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,

Paul would know that long hair was not a dishonor for men. This may be one of those passages where Paul is responding to questions the Corinthians sent him for clarification. Long hair was prevalent during the NT Jewish culture and often was a sign that a Jew had taken a Nazarite vow. You can research that practice, but we know Samson, Samuel, John the Baptist, and David's son, Absalom was known for not only his beauty, only cut his hair once a year and apparently when he did, it weighed nearly 5 lbs. Long hair was not a dishonor to men.

15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

Paul retorts that if they want to be contentious about the practice, he wanted them to know they have no such practice. He confirms my belief that this practice and passage is in response to their questions because he says:

But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. 1Co 11:17-19

So while he hears about their factions and divisions, it nevertheless provides an opportunity for his instruction and they will more easily recognize those who are bringing in divisive and erroneous teachings. A good deal of Paul's ministry is to the Jewish converts who try to bring the Christians back to the OT law and it's rules and regulations.

You also seem to only pay attention to the part of the verse that you feel backs up your claim. But you fail to realize that the passage itself does the opposite. When it clearly defines that man and woman are not equal.

RT, I would have thought I'd at least hear the "equal but different" repetitive mantra where in reality, some are "more equal than others." Wayne Grudem believes so strongly in the "equal but different" principle that he was good enough to arbitrarily devise a list of 83 things women are "allowed" to do without stepping on the toes of the authorities. That was good of him, wasn't it?

Man is not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, while woman should cover her head because she is the glory of man not the glory of God.

On the contrary, RT, both man and woman were created in the image of God. And both were given dominion and rule over the earth. See Gen. 1.

That statement alone denotes a level of authority that the man has and the woman does not. The man does not need to cover his head with a symbol of authority, because he possesses the authority already,

If he has it, we should be able to find in scripture where he was given it. Otherwise, he is taking it as God prophesied he would.

however the woman does have to have a symbol of authority on her head because she lacks that authority herself. The idea of origin is in fact not a proof of equality but a proof of inequality, which is clearly demonstrated in the different ways they are to present themselves while praying. The passage itself explains that man was not created for the woman's sake but woman for the man's sake, which clearly denotes inequality, and suggests man's authority over the woman. But man and woman are not independent from one another, because man cannot be born into existence unless a woman gives birth to him. They need each other. However, dependence on one another does not have any bearing on who has authority.

I already presented my view of the "symbol of authority." The only place in scripture that speaks of authority in the marital relationship is 1 Cor. 7 where it is mutual.

Perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree.

I know many have grown in their walk under this "equal but different" type teaching and it has become the filter through which they see. I was not exposed to this type of role-playing and stereotyping and when I heard of it, was appalled. There are many believers who are equally appalled but I do not think it should be a point of contention between us. I firmly believe it is erroneous based on the absence of any such directive, but I understand the filter that speaks to others of subordination and gender inequality. But knowing the same filter was used for centuries as validation for slavery, I will continue to try to at least balance that filter by presenting mine.

At least I commend all those who are sharing their views in a different light with grace and kindess despite the disagreement.

When Adam ate of the apple, he chose his wife's agenda over God's agenda. In this Eve was deceived into not being Adam's helpmate, putting before him a choice to follow her agenda or God'a agenda. Perhaps you might consider that we husbands suffer this temptation to follow our wife's agenda out of love for her and even fear of losing her. What we want is a wife who helps us with God's agenda for us not her agenda for us. Perhaps we want this because we know which agenda history says we choose when forced to choose.

keithareilly wrote:When Adam ate of the apple, he chose his wife's agenda over God's agenda.

Keith, scripture mentions nothing about agendas or Adam's choosing his wife's agenda. It simply says "she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. It's easy for me to see how the serpent deceived Eve when he said, "surely you won't die" because the Tree of Life was in the center of the garden along with the Tree of Good and Eve. Deception is a snare and that's why we are warned about it so often in the Bible.

In this Eve was deceived into not being Adam's helpmate,

Again, scripture does not say this. There is nothing that indicates her deception was deliberate or directed toward Adam. BTW, the word "helpmate" is a misnomer. The Hebrew word is "ezer" and it's root means to surround, that is, protect or aid: - help, succour. The word "ezer" is used @21 times in the OT and (I think) 19 times of God's help. Psalm 33:20 Our soul waits for the LORD; He is our help (ezer) and our shield.

putting before him a choice to follow her agenda or God'a agenda.

Eight times in scripture (most of them in Romans 5) Adam is declared as being responsible for the fall. His sin was intentional disobedience in contrast to Eve's being deceived by the serpent. Nowhere does scripture attribute anything to Eve other than being deceived by the serpent. Because of the serpent's deception, God curses him. Because of Adam's disobedience, God curses the ground from which he was taken (his source). Eve rightly confessed that she ate as the result of the serpent's deceiving her. Adam, on the other hand, blames Eve as well as God for giving her to him.

Notice that God tells the serpent, "...because you have..." and to Adam, "....because you have..." but lays no such blame to Eve "because" she had done anything.

I know the common view of complementarians is that Eve is to blame as justification for a command to rule over her but if there's such a thing as an "agenda" read into Genesis, this is it. In fact, there are several fables that have been passed down over the years; i.e. the "rib" rather than "side". The other is that both man and woman are to "leave their father and mother" when they marry. Scripture specifically says it is the man who should leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. No doubt there would be far less abuse and oppression of women throughout history had this been obeyed as parents would have protected their daughters against abuse as they are natural protectors. If this is followed, God's warning to Eve about Adam's "ruling over her" would a safeguard against a hierarchical relationship as opposed to the equal dominion (without a hint of hierarchial or authority structure) in God's original plan for the two. (Gen. 1)

Perhaps you might consider that we husbands suffer this temptation to follow our wife's agenda out of love for her and even fear of losing her. What we want is a wife who helps us with God's agenda for us not her agenda for us. Perhaps we want this because we know which agenda history says we choose when forced to choose.

I'm not understanding where you are coming from by assuming all wives have agendas and husbands suffer a temptation to follow. I don't see anything in scripture that infers this stereotypical tactic is common to wives or that fear of their wives is common to husbands.